A systematic survey of adults’ health-protective behavior use during early COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, Germany, United Kingdom, and the United States, and vaccination hesitancy and status eight months later
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adoption of health-protective behaviors, including social distancing measures, are a mainstay of mitigating pandemics, so it is important to understand the characteristics associated with those who use them or not. We aimed to delineate local and personal factors associated with self-reported use of health-protective behaviors (HPB) in response to COVID-19, among adults across 4 economically developed countries. We conducted an exploratory, cross-sectional, representative, on-line survey of adults in Canada, Germany, U.K., or the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic (June–July 2020) with two and eight month follow-ups. All countries were experiencing the initial waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. We obtained N = 6,990 participants, who reported 20 specific health-protective behaviors (dependent measure), along with locally mandated health measures, individual characteristics and psychological scales. Using health-protective behaviors (HPB-Quartile score) was significantly associated with 28 of 35 variables studied. In stepwise logistic regression, 21 variables predicted 23.51 % of the variance in HPB-Q scores (p <.000). The strongest predictors were locally mandated protective measures, immature defense mechanisms, COVID-fears, age, moving due to COVID-19, domestic violence, and perceived emotional support from significant others. HPB-Q predicted vaccination hesitancy/willingness (OR = 4.61, CI-95 %: 2.66–8.00) and adoption 8 months later. During the early pandemic, HPB use was most strongly associated with locally mandated measures, followed by psychiatric, demographic, and other personal factors. Considering these empirically derived characteristics may improve public health approaches to optimize HPB and vaccination adoption, mitigating SAR-CoV-2 transmission. Findings may also inform public health responses to future epidemics/pandemics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".